Skill Is Not Enough: Seeking Connectedness and Authority in Mediation

Abstract

Coauthor Christopher Honeyman was struck by the flagging “marketability” of mainstream professionally trained mediators in the U.S. More and more parties were choosing retired judges and other practitioners who were not classically trained mediators to help them resolve their disputes. Searching for an explanation of this phenomenon, Honeyman found a possible answer in Melbourne, Australia, where he listened with a Western ear to the presentations of coauthors Loretta Kelly and Bee Chen Goh about the importance of connectedness and individual perceptions of authority to the parties in the mediation of indigenous disputes. In this article, the authors present case histories from Australia and Malaysia to illustrate these concepts. They contend the same concepts are behind the shifting of the market for mediation in the United States.

Influence of Third Party Expertise on Disputants' Reactions to Mediation

“…Some scholars have looked at the knowledge and skills required for mediators' effectiveness (Herrman, Hollett , Gale, & Foster, 2001;Mareschal, 2002;Honeyman, Goh, & Kelly, 2004). Others, focusing on behavior, have examined how mediators can best match intervention tactics, such as discussing alternatives and pressure tactics, to conflict situations (Posthuma, Dworkin, & Swift, 2002).…”

Vicious Circle of Public Conflicts, Conflict Behaviors, and Public Trust in South Korea

“…The topic of trust and conflict has been studied in various contexts of interpersonal relations (Simpson, 2007), ethnic conflict (Dovidio et al, 2002), organizational relations (Mayer et al, 1995), social identity conflicts (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003), international group conflicts (Kelman, 2005), and collaborative governance (Weech-Maldonado & Merrill, 2000). This interdisciplinary literature widely recognizes that the levels of trust or distrust in a relationship definitively shapes emergent conflict dynamics (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000) and that a lack of trust propels groups toward conflict and prevents them from collaborating (Honeyman et al, 2004). Honeyman, Goh, and Kelly (2004) suggest "distrust as one formidable obstacle between the two most polarized conflict groups "(p. 2).…”

A Multi-Objective Decision Support System for Selecting Dispute Resolution Methods in the Construction Industry

“…A variety of methods formalize ADR into a comprehensive umbrella type concept for dispute resolution, methods such as problem solving/conciliation, formal negotiation, mediation, and non-binding arbitration (Figure 1). ADR methods are either binding (formal) or non-binding (informal) (Honeyman, 2004;Kellogg, 2001) the benefit of ADR is that these methods are relatively cheaper and also faster than the traditional approach however since they are less binding there is always a risk of one party not accepting the resolution and forcing the dispute to go through a more hostile and binding process such as arbitration or litigation. In the illustrated continuum of dispute resolution methods as we move from left to right hostility increases which implies there is the potential for adversarial behaviour, decline in quality of relationship and ultimately broken working relationships.…”